On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 19:15:43 +0100, Marcos Cruz wrote: > Some interesting BogoMIPS benchmarks from the Spanish QL Forum > (http://foro.speccy.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4687): > > QL with GoldCard (1): > 1.62, 1.62, 1.62, ... > > QL with SuperGoldCard (2) : > 5.83, 5.83, 5.83, ... > > QemuLator (3): > 96.55, 97.25, 96.55, 97.61, 97.08 > > QPC2 (3): > 123.56, 123.98, 123.56, 123.56, 123.70, 123.27 > > SMSQmulator (3): > 52.32, 49.98, 49.43, 50.45, 49.43 > > Notes: > (1) GoldCard -> Motorola 68000 16 MHz. > (2) SuperGoldCard -> Motorola 68020 24 MHz. > (3) PC - Intel Core2 Quad 2.33 GHz - Windows 10.
More benchmarks, with even more exotic machines, for the fun of it: QPC II v4.02/Linux 4.1/Wine 1.7.42 (*): 270.46 BogoMips 121.458 VAX Mips/213401.6 Dhrystones/s (10 millions runs) QPC II v4.02/VirtualBox 5.0.14/Windows XP Pro SP3 (*): 267.09 BogoMips 120.481 VAX Mips/211685.0 Dhrystones/s (10M runs) SMSQmulator v3.15/SUN Java 7 (JRE 1.7.0.80) (*): 131.26 BogoMips 54.579 VAX Mips/95895.7 Dhrystones/s (5M runs) Q60 @ 66MHz (overclocked 68060RC50): 127.82 BogoMips Writethrough cache mode: 24.937 VAX Mips/43813.5 Dhrystones/s (5M runs) Copyback cache mode: 47.812 VAX Mips/84005.4 Dhrystones/s (5M runs) QXL @ 35MHz (overclocked 68040RC33): 21.47 BogoMips 13.169 VAX Mips/23137.4 Dhrystones/s (1M runs) (*) PC using an overclocked Core-i5 2500K, perma-locked in turbo mode (i.e. only the C0, C1 and P0 CPU/Package states are allowed: frequency stepping is fully disabled) at 4.6GHz, running under Linux v4.1 (32 bits + PAE mode). All tests were done without job running under SMSQ/E, with SMSQ/E v3.21 for all but QPC II (v3.19) and SMSQmulator (3.23), all at a resolution of 1024x768 (but for the Q60, which resolution is 1024x512). Note that the Dhrystone/VAX Mips figures come from GCCdhrystone v2.1: they are more relevant of the actual power you can get from a machine since BogoMips only represents the maximum instructions per second throughput of a CPU executing the simplest instructions in its set (increment-test-branch loop). However, the performance reported by Dhrytstone v2.1 depends on what compiler optimizations the C compiler that was used to compile it is capable of. The cross-compiled GCC version (GCCdhrystone) is therefore (much) faster than the C68 one (dhrystone). Thierry. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
